↓ Skip to main content

Free DICOM de-identification tools in clinical research: functioning and safety of patient privacy

Overview of attention for article published in European Radiology, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
12 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
68 Mendeley
Title
Free DICOM de-identification tools in clinical research: functioning and safety of patient privacy
Published in
European Radiology, June 2015
DOI 10.1007/s00330-015-3794-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

K. Y. E. Aryanto, M. Oudkerk, P. M. A. van Ooijen

Abstract

To compare non-commercial DICOM toolkits for their de-identification ability in removing a patient's personal health information (PHI) from a DICOM header. Ten DICOM toolkits were selected for de-identification tests. Tests were performed by using the system's default de-identification profile and, subsequently, the tools' best adjusted settings. We aimed to eliminate fifty elements considered to contain identifying patient information. The tools were also examined for their respective methods of customization. Only one tool was able to de-identify all required elements with the default setting. Not all of the toolkits provide a customizable de-identification profile. Six tools allowed changes by selecting the provided profiles, giving input through a graphical user interface (GUI) or configuration text file, or providing the appropriate command-line arguments. Using adjusted settings, four of those six toolkits were able to perform full de-identification. Only five tools could properly de-identify the defined DICOM elements, and in four cases, only after careful customization. Therefore, free DICOM toolkits should be used with extreme care to prevent the risk of disclosing PHI, especially when using the default configuration. In case optimal security is required, one of the five toolkits is proposed. • Free DICOM toolkits should be carefully used to prevent patient identity disclosure. • Each DICOM tool produces its own specific outcomes from the de-identification process. • In case optimal security is required, using one DICOM toolkit is proposed.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 68 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 1%
France 1 1%
United Kingdom 1 1%
Unknown 65 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 16 24%
Other 12 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 18%
Student > Master 6 9%
Professor 5 7%
Other 17 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 32%
Computer Science 15 22%
Unspecified 12 18%
Engineering 8 12%
Physics and Astronomy 4 6%
Other 7 10%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 May 2016.
All research outputs
#1,683,919
of 12,220,741 outputs
Outputs from European Radiology
#94
of 1,596 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#40,570
of 237,106 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Radiology
#6
of 56 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,220,741 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,596 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 237,106 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 56 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.